Week of April 17, 2009 [1]
Welcome to the Citizen Media Law Brief, a weekly newsletter highlighting recent blog posts, media law news, legal threat entries, and other new content on the Citizen Media Law Project's website. You are receiving this email because you have expressed interest in the CMLP or registered on our site, www.citmedialaw.org. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, you can unsubscribe by following the link at the bottom of this email or by going to http://www.citmedialaw.org/newsletter/subscriptions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The latest from the Citizen Media Law Project blog...
Sam Bayard highlights the problems that arise regarding online content when the author dies.
Speed Skater's Mom Sues Google Over Dead Blogger's Post [2]
David Ardia reports on a successful intervention by the news media to ensure public discussion of a carjacking case.
Tennessee Judge Refuses to Ban Anonymous Comments About Murder Case [3]
Marc Randazza offers his scathing critique of a recent trademark cease & desist letter.
Goldman Sachs Tries To Bully Blogger [4]
Sam Bayard reports on a six-figure damage award in a defamation case.
South Carolina Court Awards $1.8 Million Libel Judgment Against Blogger [5]
Eric Robinson recounts the history of court rules regarding coverage of trials.
First Circuit Webcasting Argument Stems From Long History of Rules on Cameras in Courts [6]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Recent threats added to the CMLP database...
Raintree Homes v. Silverstein [7]
Posted April 15th, 2009
Brandon v. Wizeman [8]
Posted April 14th, 2009
Esfeller v. The Daily Reveille [9]
Posted April 13th, 2009
First Cash Financial Services v. Yahoo! Inc. [10]
Posted April 13th, 2009
First Cash Financial Services v. Doe [11]
Posted April 13th, 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Other citizen media law news...
Using the DMCA to Remove a Video Because It Is Embarassing
CL&P Blog [12] - Thurs. 04/16/09
UK anti-photo law beginning to show its ugly side
Photography is Not a Crime [13] - Thurs. 04/16/09
TinyURL Blocked in Saudi Arabia
Committee to Protect Bloggers [14] - Thurs. 04/16/09
Hey journalists! Stop getting all huffy about the Huffington Post's "lifting" of stories
Slate [15] - Wed. 04/15/09
Unmasked blogger blames First Baptist, Sheriff's Office
Jacksonville.com [16] - Fri. 04/10/09
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The full(er) Brief...
"Earlier this month, Cherie Davis, mother of 2006 gold medal winner Shani Davis, the first African American speed skater to make the U.S. Olympic team, sued Google, Inc. in Illinois state court, seeking an injunction requiring the company to take down a blog post written by deceased sports blogger Sean Healy. Healy published the disputed post in 2006 on his blog, Unknown Column, which is hosted on Google's Blogger service. In the post, Healy repeated the claim, reported at the time by some mainstream media outlets, including The Associated Press and Chicago Tribune, that Cherie Davis had accused the U.S. Speedskating Federation of racism. (These reports are no longer available online, but The Age, an Australian news outlet, is still carrying a similar story.) Healy subsequently died of cancer in 2007. . . . [T]he case calls to mind some interesting policy issues, which Eric Goldman does a good job exploring. To me, the most basic yet fascinating one is how we should handle online content when somebody dies. The probate process may allocate intellectual and tangible property rights, but other questions remain . . . ."
Sam Bayard, Speed Skater's Mom Sues Google Over Dead Blogger's Post [2]
"A judge in Knox County, Tennessee has refused to order news organizations to disable online comments on their stories related to a murder case or to police the comments by requiring posters to provide verifiable identifying information. Defense attorneys representing four suspects in a 2007 fatal carjacking had filed a motion in February asking the judge to restrict media coverage in order to prevent jurors from learning about the case. Two local news organizations, the Knoxville News Sentinel and WBIR-TV, quickly moved to intervene in the case and convinced the judge that such a ban would be an impermissible prior restraint on speech. In the eight-page order he issued yesterday, Judge Richard Baumgartner wrote: 'Any prior restraint of expression bears a 'heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.' A defendant 'carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.' . . . Judge Baumgartner also remarked on 'this nation’s history of anonymous speech and its importance in the establishment of this country and its [C]onstitution.' . . ."
David Ardia, Tennessee Judge Refuses to Ban Anonymous Comments About Murder Case [3]
"Michael Morgan is a Florida blogger who is a little bit upset with Goldman Sachs and its business practices. To voice his displeasure, he registered the domain name goldmansachs666.com and goldmansachs13.com and forwarded them to his blog on the financial giant. Naturally, Goldman Sachs doesn’t like to be criticized. Who does? Nevertheless, I fail to see how they could have perceived Morgan as a threat to their financial well being or anything else. . . . With Morgan’s blog plodding along in obscurity, enter John A. Squires of Chadbourne and Parke, LLP, [who] put his name to one of the dumbest trademark demand letters I have ever read. Go ahead, click it. If you practice trademark law, don’t drink any liquids while reading or you’ll shoot them out your nose as you’re laughing and then you might have to change your shirt. . . . Squires’ letter ends with a threat that if Morgan doesn’t confirm, in writing, that he will stop using the words 'Goldman' and 'Sachs,' they just might sue him. Well, April 18 is a Saturday, Walter Sobchak doesn’t roll on Shabbos, and Mike Morgan did respond in writing — with a lawsuit of his own. . . ."
Marc Randazza, Goldman Sachs Tries To Bully Blogger [4]
"The Sun News reports that a South Carolina state court has awarded Scott Brandon $1.8 million in damages for defamation arising out of statements published on the Myrtle Beach Insider blog. Brandon, who is the head of an ad agency with offices in Charleston and Myrtle Beach, sued local businessman Donald Wizeman in April 2008, claiming that Wizeman was the author of Myrtle Beach Insider and that Wizeman had defamed him by publishing a June 2007 post calling him a 'failed lawyer' and criticizing one of his ad agency's campaigns. Wizeman denied that he was the author of Myrtle Beach Insider, but admitted agreeing with its content. The $1.8 million award came after Circuit Court Judge Diane S. Goodstein granted summary judgment in favor of Brandon after a hearing in September 2008. The CMLP has not obtained a copy or transcript of the judge's ruling, but she presumably found that no material issue of fact remained for a jury to decide and determined that Brandon was entitled to judgment as a matter of law (no small feat in a defamation case). Judge Goodstein then assigned a 'special referee' to determine damages. In late January 2009, the referee awarded Brandon $800,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. . . ."
Sam Bayard, South Carolina Court Awards $1.8 Million Libel Judgment Against Blogger [5]
"On Wednesday, April 8, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston heard oral argument (mp3) on whether a trial of a Boston University student sued for music downloading, Sony BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, should be allowed to be webcast live. Federal district judge Nancy Gertner had agreed to allow the webcast, but the recording industry plaintiffs appealed. Update: On April 14, the 1st Circuit issued its opinion barring the webcast. The court held that Local Rule 83.3 (discussed below) must be read in its entirety, and in light of the Judicial Conference and 1st Circuit directives on the issue, and thus limits broadcasting of court proeccedings for preservation of evidence, perpetuation of a record, or to broadcast investitive, ceremonial, or naturalization proceedings. Court rules regarding coverage of trials were written prior to the advent of the Internet, and were written with still and video cameras in mind. (There are also varying rules -- many of more recent vintage -- on other devices in courtrooms, such as cell phones. Those rules are a topic for another day.) . . . Camera technology clearly has changed since the Lindbergh baby days, allowing for unobtrusive recording and broadcasting -- via television, cable, satellite, or the web -- of trials. In light of these changes, states that limit coverage of trials, and the federal Judicial Council, would be well advised to revisit their current, archaic rules on these issues. . . ."
Eric Robinson, First Circuit Webcasting Argument Stems From Long History of Rules on Cameras in Courts [6]
